A growing body of research suggests that the way people explain mental health struggles influences the level of stigma toward those diagnosed with psychiatric conditions. A new study published in Current Psychology adds to this debate, showing that biological and hereditary explanations for mental illness are linked to increased stigma, while attributing mental health challenges to sociopolitical turmoil is associated with decreased stigma.
Conducted by Leigh Huggard and CliĆ³dhna OāConnor of University College Dublin, the study finds that different explanations for mental health conditionsāranging from life circumstances to relational challenges to biological causesācarry different implications for how people perceive those with psychiatric diagnoses. The authors write:
āThe various social attributions measured showed significant differences in their relationships with stigma. Attributions to life circumstances, violence/abuse and relational challenges were unrelated to social distance. Attributions to sociopolitical turmoil, however, predicted lower desire for social distance from people with mental illness … the study found that attributions to heredity/biological factors were associated with greater desire for social distance from people with mental illness.ā
While previous research has shown that social explanations for mental illness can reduce stigma, this study adds nuance by revealing that not all social attributions have the same effect. Only explanations that emphasized political and economic instability were associated with reduced stigma, while other social explanationsāsuch as life circumstances, violence, or relational challengesāshowed no impact on how participants viewed those with psychiatric diagnoses.
You've landed on a MIA journalism article that is funded by MIA supporters. To read the full article, sign up as a MIA Supporter. All active donors get full access to all MIA content, and free passes to all Mad in America events.
Current MIA supporters can log in below.(If you can't afford to support MIA in this way, email us at [email protected] and we will provide you with access to all donor-supported content.)
The current work has two goals. First, the authors wanted to investigate how sociodemographic factors (such as gender, age, and ethnicity) affected how participants understood the causes of mental health struggles. Second, the authors wanted to explore how participants’ understanding of the causes of mental health struggles may predict stigmatizing attitudes toward those with mental health diagnoses.
Participants were recruited from the UK and Ireland between February and March 2023 to participate in an online survey. Participants had to be at least 18 years old to be included in the current research. In addition to providing sociodemographic details, participants were given brief descriptions of four mental health diagnoses (depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, and anorexia nervosa) and asked to rate the importance of social and biological factors in causing each mental health issue. Participants were also asked to indicate their willingness to form various relationships with people who had been given a mental health diagnosis.
The majority of participants were white (82.6%), female (50.7%), from the UK (86.5%), and college-educated (75.4%). 46% of participants identified politically as left-wing, compared to 40.7% as centrists and 13.3% as right-wing. More than 97% reported knowing at least a little about depression, PTSD, anorexia, and schizophrenia. Participants were most likely to report knowing a lot about depression (57.2%), followed by PTSD (25.46%), anorexia (21.6%), and schizophrenia (12.4%).
Measures
Social attributions of mental health struggles were measured using the Social Attributions for Mental Illness Scale (SAMI). This survey measures four types of social attributions for mental health issues:
- Life circumstances, such as poverty
- Violence and abuse
- Relational challenges, such as not fitting in with peer groups
- Sociopolitical turmoil, such as political instability and armed conflict
Participants were asked to rate the importance of each factor in causing depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, and anorexia nervosa on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important).
Biological and hereditary attributions of mental health struggles were measured using the Hereditary/Biological subscale found in the Mental Illness Attribution Questionnaire. Participants were asked to rate the importance of seven biological and hereditary factors in causing depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, and anorexia nervosa on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important).
The desire for social distance was measured using a modified social distance scale. This survey asks participants about their willingness to have various relationships with people with mental health diagnoses. For example, one question asks, “How would you feel about renting a room in your home to someone with PTSD?” Participants rated their willingness to engage in various relationships with people with mental health diagnoses on a scale from 1 (definitely unwilling) to 7 (definitely willing).
Beliefs About the Causes of Mental Illness
None of the demographic characteristics measured in the current work predicted a tendency to believe life circumstances caused any of the investigated mental health diagnoses. Participants rated life circumstances as more critical in causing depression (3.98 out of 5) compared to schizophrenia (2.79), PTSD (2.72), and anorexia nervosa (2.65).
Participants with a higher self-rated understanding of mental illness were more likely to attribute the diagnoses investigated in the current work to violence and abuse. Participants rated violence and abuse as more important in causing PTSD (4.49 out of 5) and depression (4.44) compared to anorexia (3.64) and schizophrenia (3.44). Violence and abuse were the factors rated as most important in causing both depression and PTSD.
Women and participants with a higher self-rated understanding of mental illness were more likely to attribute the diagnoses studied in the current work to relational challenges. Participants rated relational challenges as more important in causing anorexia (3.66 out of 5) and depression (3.50) compared to PTSD (2.52) and schizophrenia (2.49). Relational challenges were the factor rated as most important in causing anorexia nervosa.
Women were more likely than men to attribute the diagnoses studied in the current work to sociopolitical turmoil. Participants rated political turmoil as more important in causing PTSD (3.62 out of 5) and depression (3.37) compared to schizophrenia (2.41) and anorexia (2.10).
None of the demographic characteristics measured in the current work predicted a tendency to believe heredity and biological factors caused mental illness. Participants rated hereditary and biological factors as more important in causing schizophrenia (4.21 out of 5) compared to depression (3.77), PTSD (2.83), and anorexia (2.67). Hereditary and biological factors were rated as most important in causing schizophrenia.
Stigma
Attributing mental health struggles to life circumstances, violence/abuse, and relational challenges was not linked to increased or decreased stigmatizing attitudes as measured by a preference for social distance from people with mental health diagnoses. Attributing mental health struggles to sociopolitical turmoil was linked to reduced stigma, while attribution to hereditary and biological factors was linked to increased stigma. This finding adds nuance to past research that has found social explanations for mental health struggles lead to decreased stigmatizing attitudes. Based on the results of the current work, this may be true for some social explanations but not others.
Limitations
The authors acknowledge several limitations to the current work. They only used one measure of stigma, the desire for social distance. Other measures of stigma, such as blame, perceived danger, stereotypes, and discriminatory behaviors, may have produced different results. Most of the participants were from the UK, were white, and were college-educated, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other populations.
The design of the current study can only report associations, not causes. In other words, the current study cannot say definitively that attributing mental health struggles to biological factors causes increased stigma. The data was collected using an opt-in online survey, which could mean the participants are not representative of the populations being studied. The self-report measures could produce biased responses. The authors conclude:
“The findings hold important implications for educational campaigns and anti-stigma efforts, and tentatively suggest that explanations promoting life circumstances, relational challenges, or heredity/biological factors as causal factors may not promote improvements in lay attitudes towards people with mental illness.”
Past research has found that mental health stigma varies by diagnosis.Ā While the stigma around diagnoses likeĀ depressionĀ may be decreasing, the stigma aroundĀ schizophrenia has increased.Ā The biomedical model of mental health is linked to stigma, social rejection, and discrimination towards people with mental health diagnoses. One piece of research found that mental health literacy interventions also worsened stigma. Viewing mental health differences on a continuum, as well as psychosocial approaches to mental health struggles, may reduce stigma.
These latest findings suggest that to truly combat stigma, we may need to challenge psychiatryās dominant narratives and reconsider how we frame mental health altogether.
****
Ā
Huggard, L., & OāConnor, C. (2025). Public endorsement of social explanations for mental illness: An investigation of demographic predictors and links to stigma. Current Psychology. (Link)
You've landed on a MIA journalism article that is funded by MIA supporters. To read the full article, sign up as a MIA Supporter. All active donors get full access to all MIA content, and free passes to all Mad in America events.
Current MIA supporters can log in below.(If you can't afford to support MIA in this way, email us at [email protected] and we will provide you with access to all donor-supported content.)
Richard you are on fire……keep it up.
Report comment
Bolapro merupakan bandar bola resmi dan official partner piala dunia memberikan bursa taruhan bola terlengkap dan terbaik di dunia.
Report comment
Not sure why we cooperate with people taught or teaching there is a stigma to mental health issues, invigorating their voice, but I recall several instances from the past where people followed that same path. Rape stigma stands out, we held to that path for generations before surrendering it. AIDs stigma ruled many minds for a shorter time, but we eventually overcame the need to express that version. And there is the indelible history of Jew stigma in WWII Germany and its costs.
And all the while there were people supporting each of those there were those who did not.
We can learn from them.
Harold A Maio
Report comment
There is a vast difference between there is a stigma nd there are people taught and teaching there is. It is wise to note that difference.
Harold A Maio
Report comment
“A growing body of research suggests that the way people explain mental health struggles influences the level of stigma toward those diagnosed with psychiatric conditions” – you never needed research to confirm this – all you had to do was observe that the way we explain mental health struggles and the stigma towards those diagnosed are part of the same total phenomena rooted in the social and professional conditioning with the dominant ideas around what you call mental illness. Obviously the way we see mental illness influences feelings toward people with mental illness and the fact that you actually think we need research to support what is self-evident to perception is proof of the destruction of social intelligence by the intellect. I don’t care if you don’t understand what I’m saying because pretty much most of us have brains utterly ruined by our social conditioning anyway, and only a hefty confrontation with the truth could possibly do anything to help you. So don’t throw your axes at the messenger. After all he can then redeploy them against you, and you’d then be just a pack of cards.
Report comment
The fact that they defined stigma as ādesire for social distanceā and nothing more, is a huge limitation that renders their conclusions about stigma wrong. They did not measure stigma, they measured desire for social distance. Additionally, they measured desire for social distance by asking questions such as whether or not someone would want to rent out a room in their house to someone with schizophrenia. The problem with this is the owner would have no way of knowing if the potential tenant had active episodes of psychosis or not, and so would likely be worried that the tenant might cause a disruption while in psychosis. People are generally very intolerant of other peopleās distress and of anything that could be seen as a disruption, and without understanding that schizophrenia is a genuine neurological condition, people will be quite unempathetic to someone they see as causing disruption without a valid reason. If someone with cancer caused the same disruption, they would receive a lot more support and empathy as people know that cancer is a genuine medical condition. So to reduce stigma towards people with schizophrenia and increase empathy towards us, people need education about the scientific research which shows that schizophrenia is a thalamic disorder (the thalamus is a part of the brain responsible for sensory processing). Itās very unfortunate that neuroscience is virtually always absent from discussions about schizophrenia, despite pseudoscience masquerading as science often being present (eg inaccurate and vague statements about a so called chemical imbalance or false claims that biological factors only play a role in its development).
Report comment
You are talking about prejudice. That’s why I hate the word “stigma,” it minimizes the intent and the damage done to people.
You should know that viewing “mental illness” as a biological condition has been shown in multiple studies to INCREASE prejudice and decrease empathy for the “mentally ill” persons.
Report comment
The only reason that “stigma” is a concern to the mental health system is because they want more customers.
The problem is that neither biology nor sociopolitical turmoil cause real mental illness. Biology can be responsible for neurological problems. And turmoil can be very trying for individuals and groups. But if you are suffering because there is someone or something around making you suffer, that’s not real mental illness. That’s just a bad situation that needs to be remedied.
The mental health system should not have the burden of all the petty and not-so-petty injustices of living on Earth on its shoulders to solve. Its job is to handle real irrational responses to life, not rational ones. It currently doesn’t have a clue how to be effective at this job. And pushing off the responsibility to biology or social forces won’t help.
Report comment